Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 028


Contents

NPOV used as Weasel wording

I know this seems ironic and unexpected, but I have seen countless times when people have cited NPOV objections to my (and other's) contributions (especially in the democracy article) without citing any justifications. The authority of NPOV grants them their way without having to justify or explain how the authority of NPOV applies in each case. I, of course, believed my contributions to be NPOV with no problems at all in most cases. In some cases, these same people cited NPOV problems in contributions which exclusively contained source commentary by respected people (i.e. George Leef). Any chance that we can revise the wiki policy to require anyone citing a policy to justify how they feel the policy is violated, with specific details? Also, any chance that Wiki policy can forbid reversions unless there exists either vandalism or a consensus that material should be moved or removed? Something tells me that there already exists a policy about talking before you make major changes, but I can't seem to figure out which one or if it applies to those who cite NPOV without details or justification at the same time that they make substantial changes.

It's like someone saying, "x," and then someone else deleting x, and saying see talk page, where that person says only that "x has obvious NPOV issues." This has been common practice in the democracy article by two very active editors. It might seem obvious the NPOV assertion should be explained, but despite repeated request, this is not happening. It's almost like NPOV is being used as weasel wording (WP:AWW), taking the form of authority without actually citing such. --Landen99 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right of course. But let us use this 1) issue and 2) your interventions to collect data on how we might fix what is wrong with the Wikipedia policy system--rather than push for a particular solution. What do you say? --Rednblu 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny that these issues arise over the Democracy article. Can anyone post specific links to show how NPOV has been violated?--Shtove 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientific POV not privileged

I did the same edit on the German Wikipedia, and hardly anyone complained, either. Fine with me, so I can finally demonstrate that Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia. If all sorts of POV pushers can hijack this platform, just because they are many, fine with me, just now I have it in written that Wikipedia does not respect the academy. Fossa?! 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, jftr: “hardly anyone complained” isn’t exactly the most accurate description. At the moment, it seems more like a single admin trying to convince just about everyone else that the scientific pov is in fact not privileged. See here for details. Regards, —mnh·∇· 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fossa, there is no need for content discussion here. You are doing this edit only to proof a point, which is actively discouraged. --Pjacobi 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, see also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science. --Pjacobi 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I violate WP:POINT, but quite successfully, nobody except yourself reverts me. Point is: This is exactly how it actually works, and this is, how user:Jimbo Wales dreamt up this project. Fossa?! 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Whatever is going on here, it is definitely not NPOV as in "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." Whatever is going on here is some form of beating off the stage those reliable sources that do not say the right thing. --Rednblu 02:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So, when is a source sufficiently reliable? An article in a well-established scientific journal like The Lancet certainly is. What about books/OR-papers from ideologically biased publishing houses? Are they to be considered reliable? Other than bearing testimony to just how many half-wits *somehow* manage to get their harebrained ideas published, that is? Even though there’s a gazillion books out there claiming otherwise: there were no lightbulbs in ancient Egypt, the nazis had no extraterrestrial tech advisors, the middle ages existed and were not made up by scholars and the earth damn sure ain’t flat. Or a mere 65k years old, for that matter. Period.
Including these fringe theories in otherwise well-written articles imo borders on the brink of disinformation. It gives them undue legitimacy, because anything presented right next to the scientific rationale just *has* to be considered a viable alternative. If it were complete nonsense, it’d have been removed, wouldn’t it? Which in turn tends to attract even more fringe theorists, they get their free soap box here, after all. This isn’t exactly appealing to scientists either. (Well, maybe 24-year old ones…) Without the policy at least somewhat biased towards the scientific point of view, it is however near impossible to remove certain theories from articles. At least in de, but I doubt it’s different here.
This is what this debate is actually about. Regards, —mnh·∇· 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If there are 2 opposing journal articles, what shall we do?
  1. Suppress any mention of the one which goes against the mainstream.
  2. Report both without any indication of which one is the mainstream view.
  3. Report both, but if one is opposing, point this out.
The hardest place to apply decide this is in Global warming, where apparently there is mainstream consensus on every aspect - although several sources claim that "the science is not settled". Is this a political controversy or a scientific dispute? --Uncle Ed 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We already have an "Undue Weight" policy. Viewpoints are presented based on, among other things, the number of propoenents. Views that have too few proponentes relative to the majority view do not get included in the same article as larger views. Views that do not have any notability are not included in Wikipedia at all, period. If some "fringe" view only has ground in vanity presses, then it does not get included, as per Wikipedia's sourcing policies (It may also fail the notability guidelines, too.). I do not see a problem with not biasing towards the mainstream. You talk about reliability of sources, the problem with vanity, etc. but none of that suggests we should be biased towards the mainstream. Wikipedia policy already adequately covers many of the problems you address -- undue weight, for example, disqualifies very fringe points of view from appearing in an otherwise well-written article, the policies on attribution and the guidelines on conflict of interest prohibit creating articles based on pure vanity sources, the guidelines on notability prevent extremely fringe theories from getting included, thus preventing your "soapbox" problem, etc. I really do not see any sort of problem with the current Wikipedia system. You seem to have treaded over problems that have already been addressed by present Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Perhaps maybe you could point out some problems with those rules? mike4ty4 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody (I'm discounting mnh here) seems to be phased with the idea that academic science (incl. social science) should not be privileged (as is my experience on Wikipedia), I suggest to return my original addition. True, it's redundant, but most people would expect an encyclopedia to present chiefly scientific points of view. So, it's actually only a clarification of the currently existing practices. Fossa?! 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If we did privilege the scientific point of view, it would make no difference. We would report a single viewpoint when (as often) science represented a consensus (is there a non-biological view of the Christmas Island red crab?) and we would report non-mainstream views when there was a significant body of opinion behind them, and not otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In areas like animal species it might not matter, because popular opinion does not contradict or is agnostic about the scietific point of view. That applies to some areas of the natural sciences, but in the social sciences and humanities, the story is frequently very different. Fossa?! 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't support reinserting that text. Redundant and potentially misleading out of context. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ covers the issue with the nuance necessary. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 05:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem redundant to me at all and the FAQ is not illuminating on this point either. Fossa?! 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
See "making necessary assumptions" and "giving equal validity" at NPOVFAQ. Jim Butler(talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I did read these passages, however they give me little guidance in almost every problem I have: Frequently, I do not face "pseudoscience" but conventional wisdom cum a number of journalistic accounts that unsurprisingly transport that conventional wisdom, which is debunked by scientific points of view. If I were to describe all POVs in order of their relevance, then the different scientific POVs would come in dead last, because, clearly, conventional wisdom is more imporatnt in society. Fossa?! 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry slo-mo reply here, Forra. I think I understand your concern, but for scientific topics, peer-reviewed journals and statements from scientific bodies, etc., are per WP:ATT considered more reliable than mass media reports. So it should be OK to mention both, citing who says what. Can you given an example of a problematic article? regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Enshrining the scientific point of view as "fact" presents multiple problems.
  1. In many fields, science is progressing rapidly, and "facts" are subject to dispute within the scientific community. Until things settle down, a lot of it is guesswork. It takes time for research to be conducted and reported. Then journals usually submit articles to anonymous peer review, which takes more time. The most important step is for other science to reproduce the results. By the way, anyone got an article I can link to for this, like reproducibility of scientific results?
  2. Nearly all of science incorporates methodological naturalism, which assumes that the spirit world or the supernatural either (A) does not exist or (B) cannot be measured, detected or studied. Jimbo has made it quite clear that Wikipedia must not endorse atheism or materialism. It must remain "neutral" with respect to these positions.
Just complementing: "Nearly all of science incorporates methodological naturalism, which assumes that the spirit world or the supernatural either (A) does not exist or (B) cannot be measured, detected or studied" BECAUSE most scientists simply do NOT want to find a way to detect/measure/study the so-called spirit world, in spite of all ANALYTICAL EVIDENCES that indicate it must exist(regardless of the current religious/occultist/mystical interpretations available, N.B.) --- KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 04:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be better to refer to the scientific mainstream in terms such as "99.8% of biologists" or "95% of all scientists" or "the majority of climatologists" supporting a particular theory. And it's still better to provide their reasoning. Like, if our hypothesis is correct, then we predict X and Y. So and so investigated and found both X and Y. But we should also include dissenting findings, like A and B also investigated but reported that X was not true; thus, they say this invalidates the hypothesis. --Uncle Ed 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Uncle Ed, re your question on reproducibility above, check Intersubjective verifiability. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1. When "facts" are disputed within science the proposed passage, which is concerned with extra-scientific vs. scientific points of view, has no bearing.
2. To say that you cannot make a statement about the "supernatural"does not mean that you endorse atheism. You can at the same time exclude ideas from your investigation and nevertheless believe in them. Fossa?! 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to get a debate started about the issue of some people claiming that science is POV while the NPOV policy never takes a position on whenever science, or for that matter reality, is POV or not. The policy should either say one of these three things: 1) Science is a POV. 2) Science is a privileged POV. 3) Science is a NPOV.

Vote please and then add it to the wiki policy.--80.56.36.253 18:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to NPOVFAQ quoting ArbCom on pseudoscience

I floated this idea above, and here's a specific suggestion. To the current version of WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, I propose adding text taken verbatim from principles in the ArbCom's December 2006 ruling on pseudoscience. (The specific section quoted is here, from sections 15-18.)

With the appended material, the Pseudoscience section of the NPOV FAQ would read as follows:

(begin quote)


Pseudoscience

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.

With regard to characterizing topics as pseudoscience, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee ruled as follows:

  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

(endquote)

Jimbo is quoted at WP:NPOV#Undue weight and I think the above comments from the ArbCom are equally germaine here. Pseudoscience is usually controversial, and the above, well-reasoned decision should lead to better editing and help keep the peace. What do you think? thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I have no particular interest in which way this goes. But I am interested in observing the coordinated patterns among the scientists. For me, it is like watching a bath of H2O freeze in sections--along the walls, around seed crystals, together in floating clumps. On Wikipedia, the scientists coordinate together en masse to freeze out any semblance of NPOV, where NPOV would be "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." I bring to your attention at this time the empirical data on the biased ideological coordinations among the scientists against NPOV in three pages intrinsic redshift, creation-evolution controversy, and global warming. For example, it is easy for anyone to access the actual publications of Halton Arp or Arthur Strahler. And it is easy for anyone to search back through the history of Wikipedia pages to see where the actual words of those who criticize the dogmatism of the believers in Big Bang and Evolution are replaced by the original research of the scientists who say that Arp, Strahler, and whatever other reliable sources that present empirical data that threaten the ideological position of the establishment are "wrong." --Rednblu 20:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rednblu, I think the behavioral patterns you refer to are indeed evident among scientists, but extend to all domesticated primates as well. Organized science is discernably less of a poster child for groupthinkish behavior than organized ... you name it, really. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think subjects are "obviously" pseudoscience, a word which has no precise meaning, and certainly no scientific meaning. People still argue over whether certain subjects are pseudoscience.
  • To vote on whether a subject is pseudoscience, without peer review, without testing, and without following the scientific method... is described by a certain word: pseudoscience, or in this case, pseudoskepticism.
  • By all means note which subjects have been described a pseudoscience by reliable sources, but a consensus of editors is not attributable. --Iantresman 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Ian, the above comments weren't meant as huzzahs for every aspect of that ArbCom decision. I think the ArbCom tends to get ban-happy, and did in this instance. But I did think the part of their ruling that I quoted was pragmatic. I'm not a great fan of the term "pseudoscience", but I feel that as long as WP is going to use it, we should be internally consistent. To be blunt, I'm willing to sacrifice stuff on the edge to the dreaded "pseudoscience" label if that means sparing significant minority views. I realize the boundaries of the mainstream are not sharply delineated, and define it as most scientists do, i.e. in terms of whether (and to what degree) a topic has been discussed in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. best, Jim Butler(talk) 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Editors do not have the remit to judge certain subjects as pseudoscience; they are anonymous, potentially unqualified and unattributable. If, for example, the Electric Universe is deemed pseudoscience, I don't want to read that "the consensus of Wiki editors have deemed it so". However, if Prof. John Doe writes that he thinks it is pseudoscience, then I want to be able to refer to the source and find out why. And if he doesn't say it, and neither does anyone else, then we can't pretend that anyone does. --Iantresman 13:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not saying that if it's not in peer-review, and claims to be scientific, it must be pseudo. It could simply be a tiny minority alternative view. Often, no need to label, just let facts (or lack thereof) speak for themselves. That said, lots of WP editors are label-happy and category-happy, so here I'd suggest we at least shoot for consistency, and direct editors' attention to some relevant ArbCom principles. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this talk page is the right place to discuss Wikipedia's science standards, but here goes:

  • Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:
    1. Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.
    2. The inducement of general hypotheses or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet logical. Occam's Razor should be considered but need not be strictly applied: Entia non sunt multiplicanda, or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
    3. The deduction of corollary assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable predictions are made based on the initial hypothesis.
    4. Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced implications. Observation is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or falsifying the initial hypothesis.
  • Pseudoscience often omits the last two steps above. [1]

Our question as contributors and editors should not be, "Is it pseudoscience?" Rather, we should ask, "Which scientists or scientific bodies accept or reject this view, and on what grounds?"

If somebody says that an essential step in the standard scientific methodology has not been followed, then the article should quote that person. (Same as someone saying that an essential step was or was not taken in a disputed election. Source A said they didn't let black people vote. Source B said they threw out military absentee ballots, etc.) --Uncle Ed 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically agree. Labelling something "pseudo" is much, much less important than presenting the facts about what support it does or doesn't have. Thanks! regards, Jim Butler(talk) 04:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Pinprick: perhaps Psychiatry is not a pseudoscience, *but* most psychiatrists surely are pseudoscientists, period.

KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 05:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and totalitarian ideologies

What about using the NPOV policy as a vehicle to push totalitarian ideology, e.g. Nazi or Soviet propaganda. Should this be avoided ? And how ? --Lysytalk 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's avoided with writing style. NPOV requires we describe, not promote any point of view. --Iantresman 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you give an example from an actual Wikipedia page history where there was danger of "using the NPOV policy as a vehicle to push totalitarian ideology"? As Ian suggests above, it seems to me that NPOV could not do that. --Rednblu 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't give a specific edit diff, off the top of my head, but part of arbcom's reasoning for putting me on "probation for POV-pushing" stems from an edit I made to an article about a totalitarian nation (China, I think). I indicated that some sources assert Mao Tse-Tung killed 20 to 60 million people. They considered it to be a "POV edit".
This, however, seems to be a misreading or misuse of NPOV policy. It amounts to using the name of NPOV to suppress one POV in favor of another. This is an error, because suppressing one POV in favor of another is the same as endorsing the other POV; and endorsing a POV is the definition of "POV pushing", isn't it?
The viewpoint being pushed is that "Communism has not engaged in mass murder, at least not on the scale of ethnic genocide like Hitler". Conservatives believe the opposite of this viewpoint, i.e., that Communism has killed ten times as many people as Hitler (estimates range from 60 million to 210 million).
The method of pushing the viewpoint was to brand the contributor (i.e., me) as a POV pusher on grounds that I "added a dissenting view".
The thing that bothers me about this is that I wasn't trying to make the article endorse the Conservative POV. I just wanted to add it, as a dissenting view.
Shouldn't NPOV embrace the concept of including dissenting views? (As long as there's no implication that the proportion of people believing in the dissenting view is higher than it's actually known to be?) --Uncle Ed 12:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I weep, Ed. Yes, I know. I have seen. The scientists as a pack are trying to take you down. Part of the Huwoman flaw here seems to be that we poor descendants of our ancestors have very, very poor tools of intellect, language, and civility for facing our snowballing problems. Fred is only trying to keep us all working here together on this our grand task; there is not much he can do. If the scientists won't take NPOV responsibility for our actual Huwoman condition and flaws, then you and I and anyone else also willing to take responsibility will have to think of a way to get them to see what is happening here and be honest; does that make sense? --Rednblu 12:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • An example of the danger ? I don't have anything specific and obvious at hand but here is a somehow exaggerated example but illustrating well what I had in mind. Should the Jew article mention that according to some ideologies Jews are human while according to others they are subhuman ? Would NPOV require us to mention both points of view there ? --Lysytalk 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Common sense dictates that these POVs are presented in Antisemitism , Anti-Judaism and similar articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

the brightness of (insert favorite religion)

  • Recently I looked into treatment of monotheism believers in non-monotheism nations. Most articles gave good insight, neutral observations and so on but there was one think which started to nag on me:

Whenever the topic was "islam in (whatever country)" it read like "Islam has a bright and prospering history in (whatever). It influenced the culture with many scientific and cultural improvements with deep root in the society." - the funny thing, the two nations I looked up were china (while christs are a tolerated minority, muslims are an isolated/dispised much fainter minority) and Japan (less than 1000 Japanese are followers of islam, it has no influence at all) - but also in many other nations descriptions this style of propaganda showed up.

This all sums up to "blunt propaganda based on bad facts, most likely spread out over hundrets of articles all over Wikipedia". So my question is: Can this be considered an edit-war? How to cope with it? Who/Where to contact? Crass Spektakel 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an edit war precisely (not unless they keep putting it back in after reversion). But it is POV pushing, if the effect is to make Islam seem more prosperous or influential than mainstream historians and and sociologists think it is.
If, however, the edits are sourced to a clearly marked advocacy group, then it's not POV pushing. There's nothing wrong with saying, e.g., "The Egyptian government says that Islam contributed many scientific and cultural improvements to the world." That's not bias, because it doesn't state (blank) as a fact.
To detach Wikipedia from the endorsement of an idea, use this formula:
A said B about C.
Do others agree with this? --Uncle Ed 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NNPOV Redirects

The redirect at magnecule, which redirects to pseudoscience implicitly states (with a hand wave), "'Magnecule' is pseudoscience, period."

Now, such a statement would be a blatant violation of NPOV if it actually appeared on a "magnecule" article page and so, it seems to me, that a redirect of this type must be a violation of NPOV as well. Suppose "magnecule" is pseudoscience: So what? Either it is notable and worthy of an article of its own, written in NPOV (and identifying sources that consider it pseudoscience) or it is non-notable and deserves no page at all. In either case, it does not deserve a dismissive, opinionated, implicitly NNPOV, redirect.

So there should be rules in NPOV policy related to redirects that implicitly express NNPOV views. CoyneT talk 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a policy change is needed, because I think the policy already covers such cases. The fact that the redirect exists does not mean that the policy doesn't cover it – merely that nobody has noticed. It can be dealt with in the usual way; if you can think of a better target for the redirect, by all means edit it; if you think that the redirect is unacceptable, list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion – Qxz 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the policy covers it implicitly. However, the NPOV policy has a strong bias to articles; so strong that many people might neglect to note violations in the form of redirects (which aren't articles by definition).
I have dithered on this a bit (including considering that it should be in Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?—where it probably should be mentioned) but I still think it needs to be mentioned here. From a flow perspective, it would seem to fit best between the "POV Forking" and "Undue weight" headings in this article. It is kind of a reverse POV fork, created by someone with an opinion to direct other readers to that opinion.
In fact, it serves as the poster child for a whole class of related activities that could be very difficult to detect unless editors are watching closely. For example, I could make a link like this in the "Global Warming" article:
The prevailing [[pseudoscience|scientific opinion on climage change]] is that ...".
(Another possibility: "Supportive" references that link to contra-supportive sources.)
So maybe there should be a section on "Links Expressing a POV", which would mention both links, of the types I show immediately above, and redirects. CoyneT talk 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy?

Why, and when, did WP:NPOVFAQ become policy? WP:ATTFAQ is aiming to become a guideline, and no more; so should this be. FAQ's cannot cover all cases; doning so would involve Infrequently Asked Questions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Since June 2006. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; you actually mean the edit before, I think.
This has been discussed at some length for WP:ATTFAQ, and the consensus there seems to be that this is undesirable. If both are policy, they must be kept in sync, or else we have two inconsistent policies on the same topic. This was one reason to merge WP:V and WP:OR in the first place; they tended to drift apart.
If one is policy and the other merely a guideline, we know which governs, and the FAQ doesn't have to be complete, or nitpick about exceptions - they're in the policy, if warranted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOVFAQ has always been policy. The page contains specific examples and text that stood on the main NPOV policy page as official for years and are considered central to dealing with issues like pseudoscience (which was in the very 1st iteration of WP:NPOV for example). They were spun out into a sub page around a year ago, and have stood since that time marked as official policy since they deal with central concepts. They will need to either remain marked as policy or be re-merged back into the main page. As far as keeping the two synched, we've had very little trouble doing that over the last 1 year + . FeloniousMonk 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point. Feel free to revert my change there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

An emerging scholarly field

While I have serious concerns about the likelihood of achieving NPOV in an article, that is not the issue I want to debate on this thread. I am in the middle of writing some articles on which it would be silly to claim that there is a scholarly consensus because the field is itself rather new. According to the stated policy, "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." The problem I am having is that there are very few published articles at all. I work on eighteenth-century British children's literature (one reason I am working in this field is because there is very little published - I can write the defining book some day). But when it comes to quoting sources for articles, there are usually only a handful of articles. They do not "agree" or "disagree" in any stark way (humanities scholars rarely do that) and to present one scholar's view as one side of the argument and another scholar's view as another side would be silly. Moreover, there are books published on 18c children's literature, but they were published many years ago and are now held in low repute by children's literature scholars. Unfortunately, those books are often cited in other books because they are available (so, a book about the 18c novel will refer to these or a book about 18c history, etc.). This situation is changing as others scholars become aware of the serious problems of these books and more articles on 18c childrnen's literature are published. Any thoughtful advice on this issue is welcome. Please refer to Sarah Trimmer, Ellenor Fenn and Anna Laetitia Barbauld for reference. Please remember that these pages are works in progress. Thank you. Awadewit 10:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV banner guidelines

I see these templates added from time to time with nothing in the talk (which I think should be a requirement). It is not always apparent what the "POV" issue is or what bias the editor that placed the banner perceived in the article. At that point there is little to do in regard to "fixing" an article. Every article gets its extremist that could see biased in anything that doesn't fit their perception. I find the banner itself can add more POV then whatever was perceived in the article, since such a banner seems to state that the article is inaccurate, not truthful, biased, etc. I've also had editors that do post in the talk but can not state what is POV or what view is not present - they just seem to think the article is biased. Again you end up with a banner that asserts the article is biased per some editor (that can't state what is POV) while you hope that someone unaffiliated will review it. It seems there should be some guidelines to adding a POV banner to an article. For example:

A POV banner can itself be considered a very visible POV statement. Therefore, wiki-etiquette regarding the placement of NPOV banners is as follows:
  1. It is recommended that a dispute first start on the talk page and progress to adding POV banners if necessary. It is appropriate to allow editors time to correct and respond before adding a tag.
  2. If a banner is added, there should be a talk to discuss the dispute.
  3. If no talk and no apparent POV is present, the banner can be removed with an entry added to the talk discussing the banner placement and its removal along with a request for further information. (Perhaps leave the Cat:Articles which may be biased if review is desired).
  4. An article banner is for an entire article and should not be used for minor POV disputes in a section or sentence. Use a section or sentence tag when possible to address the dispute.

I think guidelines such as these (probably greatly improved by this group) would allow for improved resolution, less POV disputes, a common process, and general wiki-etiquette. Thoughts - Morphh (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Policy on adding and removing the tags is currently very unclear and confusing, and frankly, the current practice is a disaster. Editors often add the tag without comments on the talk page (can adding them be done automatically through some fancy template magic?), then other editors interested in the article often remove the tag immediately with an edit comment like, "I don't think the article is POV." A big part of the problem is the glaring banner that goes right into the article. Wouldn't it be more effective to encourage first starting with some kind of "Policy warning" banner on the talk page? Groups of editors interested in particular policies (like NPOV-interested editors here) could watch for those tags on talk pages. There would be time to go help because the article's editors wouldn't be freaking out about a banner defacing the article itself. Obviously, a banner in the article would be appropriate if problems persisted. Gnixon 06:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for NPOV review News design

Hello Everyone, I'm kind of new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if I'm approaching this the wrong way.

I've developed a discussion with an editor for the News design page, and since we cannot agree, or, it seems even agree to disagree, I would like to hear from folks who work the NPOV issue on the elevation of some news designers over others.

In particular, in the Notable News Designers section Ernie Smith deletes some living and selling newspaper designers that get linked from the page and allows others to remain listed.

When asked, he replies that the folks he chooses to list are "truly" outstanding in their field, while others are not. A review of the history file shows some pretty aggressive removals, despite requests to review the work of people before he deletes them.

The trouble I have with this is that the links to some of the Newspaper designers he endorses go straight to their web sites where they are selling their services and books, thus serving to raise their visibility over their likely competition.

The discussion page documents the exchanges he and I have had on the subject.

Any thoughts from the NPOV team?

Thanks, Designing news 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the external links in the body of the article linking to the persons web page should not be there. If there is an internal link to the person, then link it. If the link is used as a source, then it should follow the sentence in a ref type format. If they're notable enough, a link can be added to an external links section at the end of the article and should follow the Manual of Style for External links. If the other user or yourself are debating over who is notable, it sounds like Original Research. You should be referencing something else that says these individuals are notable or outstanding news designers. It is not your or his/her place to make that determination on Wikipedia. Anyway - that's my 2 cents. Morphh (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I apolgize for rekindling this debate here, but I'd like to point out that this user added a link from one of his close friends not long after it was removed. And I removed it. As a result, he's sort of been on this campaign to prove that I don't have neutrality on this particular article because I'm putting in the names of designers who have actually written books, who journalists might be aware of, and so on.
I removed quite a few links from people who added themselves to the site – links that perhaps didn't deserve to be deleted. I made very passionate, airtight defenses of who was removed and who wasn't. His consultant friend isn't nearly as well-known as the other designers posted, who are responsible for wide-scale redesigns of major papers such as The Wall Street Journal and USA Today and writing college textbooks that are widely used by students of all stripes.
I did as much as I could to accommodate him and emphasize impartiality (removing people, rewording things), but he's just mad because I'm not going to add his friend in. If you look at the edit logs, User:Designing news only became a member of Wikipedia a very short time after the consultant himself tried to add links to the News design article, and nearly all of his edits have been related to this particular article.
You want to talk neutrality? Tell him that he shouldn't fight so hard to get his friend into an article just to prove his relevance. - Stick Fig 16:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-American focus

I think this FAQ question and answer itself betrays a US/UK/Ire focus as opposed to Can/Aus/NZ/SAfr, and should be edited to correct this. Joeldl 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT: Join the discussion at

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dumb questions and dead horses

I know this is a dumb question, and (even to me) it seems like I'm beating a dead horse. But what can we do if a particular topic or article series winds up being dominated by editors who:

  • assert that the most popular view is the correct one
  • turn passages describing the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint into an argument implying that one is better
  • insist that articles be sympathetic to one view and come out in forthright opposition to the opposite view
  • advocate the elimination of viewpoints from articles, on the grounds that the view expressed is "wrong"
  • omit background on who believes what and why
  • dismiss attempts to add significant published points of view which conflict with the mainstream, as "tendentious" or "disruptive" or "undue weight" - even when the contributor adding these agrees readily to describing these as "minority"
  • resist attempts to fix articles which have bias towards one particular point of view and remove pov dispute tags from articles or sections
  • engage in debates on talk pages and resist calls to "get back" to discussions on how to improve the article

I refer, of course, to that plethora of hotly disputed topics concerning history, politics and science (particularly the science of the environment) where a liberal point of view is exalted. I do not, needless to say, want to replace liberal bias with its evil twin, conservative bias!

All I want is for article to step back and refrain from drawing conclusions about conflicting views; to permit all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one; to refrain studiously from stating which is better; and to leave reader to form their own opinions. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue you raise is particularly relevant for articles like Creation-evolution controversy, Objections to evolution, Misunderstandings about evolution, etc., which almost always end up becoming a list of topics that begin with "Creationists say ..." and continue with unattributed statements like "However, [they are wrong because....]" Editors of those pages are anxious not to let any creationist POV creep in, and many seem to derive significant pleasure from proving creationists wrong. So even if the articles start out very NPOV, they gradually accumulate more and more anti-creationist bias. Most of the articles seem to have been spawned by debates with creationist vandals of the Evolution page on Talk:Evolution. With constant monitoring, editors of Evolution have been able to maintain a consensus that the article will reflect the view of scientists with only a brief mention of creationism in a controversy section, but obviously that option isn't available for articles on the controversy itself. Many of the editors of Evolution have exported their monitoring practices and fervor to the controversy articles. Gnixon 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite WP:RS to make it consistent with the spirit of WP:NPOV and explain undue weight?

See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion#RS_and_NPOV. You can participate at Wikipedia:Undue weight (sources). Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed clarification to the "Undue Weight" clarification

It seems there is a common mis-application of the "Undue Weight" principle, and this mis-application could be addressed by editing the relevant section of the policy page. I will now: 1) explain what I am talking about with an illustration; and 2) propose to make a clarifying edit to the policy page. If you are in a hurry, just skip ahead to the proposed clarification to the clarification below.

Example: This example is entirely fabricated for illustrative purposes only:

     The planet Earth is an oblate sphereoid.[fn1] The shape of the Earth has been
     confirmed by scientific studies[fn2] and documentary evidence including photographs
     taken from space[fn3]. Antecedent theories, such as the "Flat Earth" view and the 
     "Turtle's Back" hypothesis are now discredited.

     Proponents of the Flat Earth view have contested the scientific studies.[fn4] They
     have also stated that the documentary evidence is ambiguous, because the photographs 
     were taken in outer-space, where it is always night time, and too dark to see 
     everything.[fn4]
Oblate spheroid. This specific diagram was rejected by flat-earth proponents.

The point is this. For the article Earth it seems reasonable to suggest that the second paragraph does not belong, nor does the second sentence in the image caption, by proper application of the "Undue Weight" principle. However, it does not seem reasonable to suggest that these do not belong in the article Flat Earth, because it directly addresses the subject matter of the article.

A reader or contributor who wishes to make an independent, neutral assessment of the credibility (or lack) of the "Flat Earth" view would consider the second paragraph relevant. Moreover, it seems unnatural to omit justifying viewpoints (even if they lead to discredited conclusions) if they directly address the rationale and historical basis for that minority viewpoint. One may question or even ridicule the viewpoint itself, but if the article is going to be on WP, and it's going to satisfy NPOV, then shouldn't the essential elements of the minority viewpoint be addressed completely? If the article has survived wp:afd and the content is properly sourced, isn't the credibility of the viewpoint a matter to be left for the reader to decide based on the available evidence?

Additionally, on the question of sourcing and citing the minority viewpoint, it seems unbalanced to claim "Undue Weight" on the basis of citations that do not even address the subject matter of the article. For example, a scientific study that does not even address the "Flat Earth" viewpoint, or why and how it was discredited, and merely stipulates that all minority viewpoints are beneath consideration, would not seem to be of much use in the "Flat Earth" article.

Proposed clarification of the clarification:

   Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give 
   minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, 
   and may not include tiny-minority views at all unless those views directly
   relate to the subject matter of the article itself.

Thoughts? Critique? Feedback and comment on this are welcome. If no one complains, I will be happy to make the clarification. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your point is already incorporated in the current policy. If you read further down in the "undue weight" section, you'll find this: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth." Crum375 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be helpful to clarify the relationship between this approach and WP:POVFORK. As I understand the intent of the clarification, separate articles ON alternative viewpoints are OK, but separate articles FROM alternative viewpoints are not. Perhaps this could be a bit more explicit. WP:POVFORK currently doesn't have a section explicitly permitting articles on alternative viewpoints. Perhaps it should. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the point by Shirahadasha is accurate. Also, the subsequent text cited by Crum375 is also in need of clarification. For example, at one point in time the "Flat Earth" hypothesis was actually the majority view. Under the current wording, WP contributors would be advised against depicting the "oblate sphereoid" view as the truth ... this wording is problematic for a lot of reasons, and should also be reworded to better harmonize with the letter and spirit of WP policy.

Proposed clarification of the clarification: (part 2)

   ... Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, although a view may be spelled out in 
   great detail, it should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint,
   and it should not reflect an attempt to rewrite the subject matter of majority view
   articles entirely from the perspective of the minority view. Also, such articles are 
   subject to the same WP:ATT requirements as all other WP content.
That's of course a 'rough draft' ... but the purpose of the clarification I think makes sense.

(NOTE: the "undue weight between articles" point below I think is a separate issue, and since every WP article can tend to have a "life of its own" I think it should be discussed separately). dr.ef.tymac 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Just a note to inform all interested parties I plan to make my proposed clarifications to the page soon. 20070328_065802. dr.ef.tymac 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: I just made a first attempt at the "Undue Weight" clarification regarding minority viewpoints. Hopefully this clarification is entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of the extant WP policy. Comments and criticism are of course welcome, but I think the discussion immediately above provides sufficient rationale for the modification. Regards, dr.ef.tymac 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight between articles

This discussion also touches on another issue with undue weight, since the current text is specific to a single article. There also is an issue with undue weight between articles. For example, if a separate article on a minority view covered it in greater detail than the article on the majority view, this would put undue weight on the minority opinion. Likewise, if the minority viewpoint was significant, but the article was deleted for a procedural or technical reason, that would also put undue weight on the majority opinion. Since articles can be merged or split by editors at any time, the focus of this section should apply to WP as a whole, and not just individual articles. Dhaluza 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think you can compare undue weight between articles. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject [..] Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them"
  • A general article on a subject has an obligation to cover all significant views.
  • An article on a specific significant view, need only mention that there are other views, and articles on those other views is the place to detail them --Iantresman 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What about those who insist that we say something like

The planet Earth is allegedly an oblate sphereoid.[fn1] Questions about the validity of this view is raised and alteranative theories like "Flat Earth" have been presented[fn2].

Would that be undue weight? // Liftarn

Undue weight?

If the commonly accepted fact is that X is Y, but some dubt it would it be correct to in the article write that "X allegedly is Y" or would that be to give undue weight to a minority opinion? Like "Elvis allegedly died..." or "Armstrong allegedly landed on the Moon". // Liftarn

Using your examples, the term 'allegedly' does not seem appropriate. That is, unless the subject matter of the article itself specifically relates to the dispute. Even then, it would probably be best to replace "allegedly" with different wording, consistent with WP:RS and WP:ATT. An allegation is a statement that the proponent readily admits has yet to be proved as fact. Few (if any) proponents of the statement "Elvis is dead" would readily admit it has yet to be proved as fact. dr.ef.tymac 13:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Any suggestions on better wording? // Liftarn
Probably not, since we are talking in general terms with hypothetical examples. Also, such questions and suggestions are more appropriate on article talk pages, where all interested parties can provide input, don't you agree? dr.ef.tymac 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears deadlocked. Time to call for help I guess. // Liftarn
No. The word allegedly has no place in an article, as it is a severe weasel word and I'm hard pressed to think of any situation where it wouldn't be an NPOV violation. In both examples you give, Liftarn, the view is significant enough that it does deserve mention (generally, I think the undue weight section doesn't have strong enough wording that in some circumstances, any weight is undue weight), but the proper construction would be a sentence, "Some people continue to insist [[minority held viewpoint]], but this is rejected for <cited reason 1>, <cited reason 2>, etc." The Literate Engineer 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree that "allegedly" is a horrible weasel word. However, the "proper construction" offered by TLE has big problems with making unattributed POV statements. There's a better way. For example: "Some(^citation) believe Elvis is still alive, despite documentation(^citation) of his burial and other evidence to the contrary. The vast majority of mainstream historians accept the standard record of his death.(^citation)" Gnixon 03:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm hard pressed to think of any situation where it wouldn't be an NPOV violation. ... It seems the word would be appropriate if used to identify an historical fact:
   Elmer Fudd was under investigation by the FTC in 1962 for allegedly 
   "huntin' wabbits out of season."(^fn)
   The investigation was subsequently dropped when Fudd was pronounced mentally
   incompetent.(^fn)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreftymac (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC).



moving instead of removing

Hi. I was thinking that it may be good to add additional sentence to this policy regarding frequent deletions I've seen on wikipedia. It often happens that when some valid, verified, etc. sentence is put in for example lead of article, or some other section, an editor will delete it with a short explanation: not appropriate for this section, should be elsewhere, and sometimes they even say where. However, they don't put it there. This is not a big deal if sentence was added by regular editor, he'll just put it again (hopefully) in more appropriate section. However, if it is put by a one time visitor to that article, and than deleted, it may not appear again for who knows how long. I suggest that there should be a guideline saying that valid sentences like that should not be removed but moved! In this way, beside already mentioned problem, there will be less edits of a page - 1 instead of 2 or more (including discussions about removals etc.). I particularly noticed that this happens when editors in fact don't like the sentence in question, and actually they give explanation more as an excuse for removing it, than as real consideration of having it elsewhere. Lakinekaki 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

don't like the sentence in question, and actually they give explanation more as an excuse for removing it ... if someone gives an excuse for removing content, then the additional sentence you propose won't really amount to much, because the person can simply give an alternate excuse the next time. What's really needed is for people to resolve editorial disagreements with discussion. Your suggestion may be better suited for one of the pages at Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia. dr.ef.tymac 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Help tutorials expanded a lot since I joined WP!
If sentence is valid in regard to V, N, and NOR than it is not so easy to find an excuse for removal, while 'shouldn't be here but somewhere else' is quite easy to say.Lakinekaki 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you. There doesn't seem to be any sure-fire way to prevent people from making "cop-out" excuses though. Not to mention we should always remember WP:AGF. dr.ef.tymac 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I just put in a RFC on Talk:Intelligent design#Request for comment: lead. This is a featured article with a large and long dispute that has gotten no where with great discussion. Since it is charged as a NPOV issue - I thought I would post here as well as I'd like the thoughts of this group. The NPOV dispute is over first part of first sentence "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,". Disputers charge that the article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed as ID itself does not define who the designer is. A federal court case is used as a neutral source and has identified that proponents overwhelmingly believe the designer to be "God". Disputers want the term "God" changed to a less specific term or the opinion statement attributed so that it is factual. Defenders believe the statement to be factual and that changing it would be repeating ID rhetoric. This is the reason the article is protected, with heavy debate going back into the talk archive. Morphh (talk) 2:05, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

How to report NPOV violations?

The warning templates indicate editors can be blocked for repeatedly violating WP:NPOV. How are such editors reported for such violations and why isn't this information mentioned in this article? Perhaps I'm just missing something that needs to be a bit more obvious? --Ronz 03:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC) How do you just remove history and facts??? I went to Gene Scott's information page to find out what has happened to his wife, Melissa Scott, and the church he founded here in Los Angeles. There was once a link to her name which originally gave information regarding her background and present status. Now the link has been totally removed. Interesting!! Did someone object to facts about her earlier life?? This is certainly not real or perceived neutrality in your encyclopedia...you just delete history and magically...nothing must have happened! --Sbostrom 13:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

authority of author vs. authority of publication

The NPOV policy states "The reference requires [...] a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)." WP:NPOV#A simple formulation

I think the word "authority" should be further qualified: "authority in a relevant field". A great physicist may express his/her opinions in religious matters. Are his/her opinions automatically admissible?

A related, but somewhat more subtle point: i wonder whether a professional's opinion is automatically admissible even when he/she opines in the field of his/her expertise. It is in the human nature to misuse authority and, conversely, to blindly accept authority. The misuse of authority in an argument even has a name: "Appeal to authority". Ideally, claims made in an article, whether factual or of a more qualitative nature, should only be admitted based on their inherent merit rather than on the identity of the source that made them. However, one of the key tenets of Wikipedia, which i am fully behind, is that readers should not need to have special expertise in order to verify the claims made in articles. So some degree of appeal to authority is unavoidable. The question is: what degree? As i've written, this point is subtle, but it needs be addressed, since it arises in practice in disputes, and has direct bearing on the application of the NPOV policy.

A simple approximation to the ideal emphasized above is admitting opinions made by an authority in matters that fall in the scope of his/her field of expertise. A better approximation, in my opinion, would be admitting only claims from such sources that had undergone a critical scrutiny by several independent professionals. So a letter to the editor or a book review, written by an eminent sociologist for a popular magazine, are not admissible, even if he/she opined on a topic in the realm of his/her expertise. Whereas if the same expert published those same opinions in an article published in an academic journal, then it's ok to quote them from that article. Itayb 09:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree you raise legitimate points, I also agree that some of your points are quite refined. For this specific reason, I think the proposed modification to the policy page would be inappropriate. The change you propose could be easily seen to legitimize protracted squabbles over credentials, and that already happens enough. Moreover, such squabbles are almost certain to involve disparagements against living persons, which is obviously not good.
Most importantly, the term recognized authority already conveys the needed information. Just because someone is an expert volcanologist, does not mean they know anything about molecular biology. If someone were to assert "recognition" in the field of volcanology had anything to do with genetics, that assertion could easily be discredited on the article talk page. If the question of "recognition" is more subtle than that, modifying this policy page is not going to do anything to help resolve it. dr.ef.tymac 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It could certainly help deal with a recurring problem if there was something quotable on this policy page about field of expertise. There are often NPOV disputes where one side objects to citing an expert as an authority outside his/her field. The two sides almost always end up talking past each other because of this issue---that part of the debate could be quickly cut off by having quotable policy. Gnixon 15:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As for only admitting only reviewed publications, that seems too extreme. We would essentially be limiting our sources to peer-reviewed journals. There's too much legitimately citable material outside of the reviewed literature. Attribution is an important concept here. Information in the literature may often be attributable to the field, whereas information in, say, Newton's Principia should be attributed to the author. Gnixon 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
dr.ef.tymac wrote: "The change you propose could be easily seen to legitimize protracted squabbles over credentials". Just on the contrary! What i'm suggesting is that the credentials of the author be regarded as completely immaterial. It's just the credentials of the publication where their opinions had been published that matters. Itayb 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, but what about, say, Feynman's series of books on physics. How do we evaluate the "credentials" of those books? Gnixon 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The relevant questions to ask are along the following lines:
  • Does the Addison-Wesley publishing company, the publisher of Feynman's lectures, specialize in physics textbooks?
  • Does the publishing house have a good reputation in the scientific community?
  • Was the book's production supervised by a technical editor?
  • Has the book survived more than one printing? More than one edition? Itayb 15:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
How do you distinguish: 1) a complete crank from; 2) a competent scholar from; 3) an exceptionally gifted autodidact? For some disciplines, it is not a trivial matter to distinguish, and the reputation of a publication alone is neither necessary nor sufficient to weed out the all the bad and bring in all the good. People in all three categories have been published in journals of varying levels of prestige. (See e.g., Category:Scientific_misconduct, Jan_Hendrik_Schön).
Are you suggesting such personal distinction is completely irrelevant and should never be considered? If you are saying "personal credentials are entirely irrelevant and only the reputation of peer-reviewed journals is what matters", I respectfully suggest you have a tough case to make, and I, for one, am not yet convinced, especially since you yourself have acknowledged certain inclinations in "human nature". Sure, those are all relevant questions, but not a single one of those questions you pose is precluded by the current wording of the policy: recognized authority. So why are we having this discussion? dr.ef.tymac 16:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

dr.ef.tymac wrote: "How do you distinguish...?" You don't. You distinguish between publishers not between authors.

dr.ef.tymac wrote: "Are you suggesting such personal distinction is completely irrelevant and should never be considered?" That's roughly what i'm suggesting (I wouldn't use the word never. I'm suggesting a general rule, but the details of the rule and the exceptions to it still need to be elaborated).

Wikipedia's own premise is that the identity and credentials of the contributors are immaterial. All that's really important is that the contributors attribute their contributions to reliable sources. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about attributability. Why? Ideally, all statements in Wikipedia should be correct, but a reader cannot in general tell apart what's correct from what's incorrect without special expertise. If only Wikipedia could provide the readers access to a computer, which, when fed with a statement, outputs whether it is correct or incorrect. But no such computer is available, so Wikipedia needs to use a replacement, which is a reasonable approximation to this fantastic computer. The attributability requirement is such an approximation.

There are many possible approximations, but all have the same general structure:

1. Every statement in every article is associated with some object (a citation). Instead of verifying the statement, the reader verifies that the associated object meets some criteria (i.e. that the reference is a reliable source). Let's call such an object that meets the criteria a valid object.

2. It should be easy for any reader to verify that such an object is valid.

3. There should be a strong positive correlation between the veracity of a statement and the validity of the associated object, i.e. if the object is valid, the statement is probably true.

The art lies in crafting a set of criteria, which meets requirements 2 and 3. In other words, we need a Reliable Sources policy, which makes it easy to figure out whether a source qualifies as reliable, and such that if a source qualifies, then claims originating from it are probably correct.

In order to tackle this challenge we need to answer the question: what does it mean for a claim to be correct? A claim is correct if it is a mathematical truth or if it was arrived at by following the scientific method. In other words, a claim is correct, if the methodology used to derive it is scientifically satisfactory. It is quite possible to have two contradictory claims which are both correct, if both were arrived at by following the scientific method. In fact, such a situation arises frequently in fields such as History and Sociology, which are less amenable to controlled experiments than the natural sciences, and where the number of relevant parameters is overwhelming. (It even arises naturally in the exact sciences, such as when Computer Scientists make claims under the assumption P != NP, when in fact no one knows whether this assumption is true or false.)

So now, that we have defined what it means for a statement to be correct, we need to decide what sources are to be considered reliable, such that when they are cited, the reader can be reasonably assured, that the claims they make were obtained by following the scientific method. I claim, that it is not good enough to mark a person as a reliable source, because the same person often uses different standards of rigor for different documents. When a Professor submits a paper for an academic journal, he/she usually tries hard to adhere to the scientific method, but when the same Professor writes in a non-academic magazine, his standards are much looser.

Consider the following case i've run into recently. Werner Cohn is a former professor of Sociology, who used to study Jews, Gypsies and small political movements. A few years ago he wrote a book review for Israel Horizons, a political periodical. The topic of the book he reviewed, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (by Israel Shahak), is tangential to Cohn's realm of expertise, as the title indicates. However, the review itself clearly expresses Cohn's personal opinion, and is not written to academic standards. As long as Cohn is considered himself to be a reliable source, this review can be freely quoted, as in fact it is in the article about Israel Shahak. But isn't it just a way of pushing a POV clad in the respectability and authority provided by Cohen's (authentic and surely well-deserved) credentials? But if the criteria for Reliable Sources were changed, so as to admit sources based not on the credentials of their author, but on the methodology by which their content was produced, this article would not be admitted. However other writings of Cohen could still be admitted, if they were written to academic standards.

But a casual reader cannot be expected to be able to verify quickly and without special expertise whether an article's methodology is satisfactory. So instead, let's approximate this by admitting only such sources, which are known to verify the methodology of the material they publish. That's what i'm suggesting. Itayb 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Majority vs. Minority

When there is a majority, how large must it be before it gets the right to bully all opposing views into submission. Or how much weight should an article give to criticism of views which are not so small as to be a tiny minority and thus ignored completely?

I boldly inserted the following into the project page:

  • Note that the undue weight provision is intended to avoid giving undue weight to a minority view about the subject in question. It should not be used to justify giving a lot of weight to criticism of a minority view.

Have I correctly expressed the intent of NPOV here? --Uncle Ed 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As the policy says, shouldn't majority/minority views be presented in proportion to the level of acceptance of each? So with an topic that is very disputed and controversial, and the majority being only slightly larger than the minority, only slightly more weight should be given to the majority view. In the case of a topic where the minority is tiny (but still notable enough for mention), it certainly seems appropriate to devote a considerable amount of space to the majority view, whether that would be described as "criticism", response to the minority view etc. Your addition seems to contradict other parts of NPOV and doesn't seem consistent with the intent of undue weight to me, and would seem to discourage putting in the mainstream point of view proportionally. I'm taking it out for now pending discussion here. --Minderbinder 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Concur: Although I agree with Minderbinder's removal of the content in question, I do not entirely agree with the rationale. The simple fact is the contribution you proposed presents an issue that is already addressed in the policy page, which states in relevant part:
An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject (emphasis not in original).
If you can substantiate that a specific article represents an attempt to "bully all opposing views into submission," then explain why it's inappropriate. Remember, however, that significance to the subject is the central issue here. If the article is about the "oblate sphereoid" theory of the Earth, then Flat earth views, regardless of how 'tiny' or 'popular' they may be, are of dubious relevance to subject matter of the article. Any squabbles over whether a view is 'tiny' are secondary, and can already be resolved using the existing principles stated in WP:NPOV and WP:RS (among others). Unfortunately, for those reasons, the contribution you proposed is superfluous and potentially misleading. dr.ef.tymac 14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not surprising, he's tried something very similar at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: [2] The problem here with this is that this user has been on arbcomm probation since late '06 for doing just this (emphasizing the minority's pov at the expense of the majority's) at a number of articles, particularly global warming and intelligent design, and disrupting policy pages with alterations to support doing so. I have a hard time seeing his attempt here as anything but evidence that he has failed to have gained any insight from the RFAR experience or mend his ways. FeloniousMonk 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a problem here. And I am looking for a way to use the language that we have to clarify what the problem is. Let us take the global warming page for example. Does the "Verifiability, not truth" standard help explain the exclusion of dissenting opinion from the global warming page? For example, it seems to me that Richard Lindzen, violates the "Verifiability, not truth" standard in his own work by opposing what his fellow professionals consider to be "Verifiability, not truth." Does that make sense? That is, in opposition to what his fellows consider to be "Verifiable," Richard Lindzen seems to be proclaiming truth. Would you agree? --Rednblu 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

List of perceived non-Neutral articles

Is there one?

Jackiespeel 13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:NPOV disputes I guess... // Liftarn

A neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias

I would submit that this should forbid a militant and relentless attack by the "majority" on any "minority" point of view which has the effect of marginalizing the minority or implying that it is "wrong". Writers like FeloniousMonk keep removing any information which presents notable minority views in a good light, using the blatantly specious argument that the undue weight provision not only permits this, but requires it. They are wrong, and Jimbo has said so.

I wrote:

  • The undue weight provision is intended to avoid giving undue weight to a minority view about the subject in question. It should not be used to justify giving a lot of weight to criticism of a minority view.

If I'm wrong, you should begin by explaining what is wrong with the specific edit made. If either of these sentences contains an error, I wish someone point it out. To me, it seems like I am just stating the policy we already have. --Uncle Ed 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To Uncle Ed, As already stated above:
  An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but 
  should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance
  to the subject (emphasis not in original).
If you feel criticism of a view is treated disproportionately to the significance of the subject, (either too much or not enough) the existing wording of the policy already addresses that issue and you can make your case from there on the article discussion page. dr.ef.tymac 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that certain Wikipedia pages are held hostage to OriginalResearch. However, the problem is the lack of clear and self-consistent policy text. Would "Verifiability, not truth" be a fair standard for assessing the balance between majority and minority views? --Rednblu 15:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are familiar with the current discussion of the role of "truth" as substantiation for WP content (I'd link it but im in a hurry) you will easily see that road is an intellectual tarpit, and well beyond the scope of this discussion page. Moreover, the burden of evidence for adding content to WP rests with the proponents. If you wish to proceed here you might do well to make a very clear and compelling case that the current wording of *this* policy text is unambiguously in need of correction. As far as I can see, that case has not yet been made. dr.ef.tymac 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(Parenthetical aside in response to the honorable User:Dreftymac): The only problem I see is that some Wikipedia pages are held hostage to OriginalResearch so that WP:NPOV is clearly violated. The honorable User:Ed Poor has modeled this very real problem as a violation of "representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias"--which at least resembles the shadowed shape of the problem. I am looking for a better word modeling of the problem and am exploring "Verifiability, not truth." I don't know yet if this line of inquiry will be fruitful; I need more data; we need more data. --Rednblu 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-defacto non-dejure countries and their categorization

I inquire a second opinion on categorization and treatment of non-defacto (country is not recognized by anybody) and non-dejure (country does not claim to exist) countries on wikipedia in the light of this very policy. -- Cat chi? 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

moral resonsibility

Shouldn't the policy mention the moral resonsibility of editors to work towards NPOV? —AldeBaer 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This and related issues are discussed at WP:AGF and WP:5. dr.ef.tymac 02:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

restoring section

This page has recently been used as "evidence" that NPOV requires us to depict fringe theories of the authorship of Shakespeare's plays as "scholarly". The wording in question was inserted by a user on his second (and last) edit to Wikipedia. As the wording he inserted doesn't conform to reality, I'm changing it back to the wording before he got here, which is uncontroversial and conveys the point more effectively. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • disagree. Certainly not a "fringe" theory anyhow. With proponents like Mark Twain, Walt Whitman and several Supreme Court Justices, I would defy anyone to mention a modern fringe theory that boasts such proponents.Smatprt 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree. That statement simply flew in the face of accepted academic knowledge and was clearly POV pushing. I wouldn't expect people glancing through this page to know much about the full situation unless they had spent any time looking into the topic. DreamGuy 01:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • disagree. if it's such a fringe theory, then someone would have noticed it over 3 years. Apparently it did not raise red flags with the thousands of visitors to this page. Smatprt 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Damn straight. That stuff just sneaked in there, huh? Embarrassing that it lasted this long.